- Information
- AI Chat
NEA Final Draft - Civil Rights Coursework on the impact of presidents on furthering the civil
History
Sixth Form (A Levels)
• A2 - A Level
Recommended for you
Students also viewed
- Causes of the Spanish Civil War Essay
- Investigating area of historical debate, full coursework - the origins of WWII
- Brian Manning The monarchy and the military (September 1999)
- The Debate over Transportations to the Witches Sabbat in Early Modern Europ-6
- Whr,+Katelyn+Mc Girr,+Braunschweig+-+A+Historiography+of+Ordinary+Germans+and+the+Holocaust
- Newman - Coursework History on Holocaust Nazi Germany
Preview text
Charlie Gibbs
Word Count: 4097
How far was presidential support the key factor in helping advance African American civil rights between the years 1860-1970?
The advancement of African American Civil Rights between 1860 and 1970 was a strenuous process, characterized by long periods of stagnation. Every major progression was because of presidential support as it proved essential in producing key legislation and in influencing wider acknowledgement of the need for improving conditions for African Americans. To assess whether presidential support was the key factor in advancing civil rights for African Americans, presidential action must be evaluated as to whether they caused purely de jure (legal) change or if this caused de facto (actual) change. In particular, the administrations of both Abraham Lincoln (1861-1865) and Lyndon B. Johnson (1963-1969), primarily initiated de jure change, which undoubtedly resulted in de facto change. Their impact must be further evaluated against the actions of African American educators, such as Booker T. Washington; the development of groups such as the NAACP who specifically targeted progress via the courts, and civil rights leaders in the 1960’s, including Malcolm X and Martin Luther King Jr, who had two differing approaches to civil rights reform, but both forced the issue of civil rights into the national spotlight. All of which induced more societal change when compared to the presidents during their respective period. Ultimately despite being largely inconsistent between 1860 -1970, presidential support for legislative reform paved the way for lasting change.
The first significant instance of presidential support being the essential factor in advancing civil rights was Lincoln issuing the Emancipation Proclamation (1863). This caused legislative change, which led to minimal societal change. However, the conditions prior to emancipation were so inadequate, not much change had to occur for African American lives to improve.
Lincoln’s intention, by issuing it, was not for black Americans to have more civil rights, but rather to gain the support of politicians and citizens. He tried to gain the support of northern politicians by stating that their freedom was a military necessity and therefore demonstrating that this was not “sincerely believed to be an act of justice” (Source 1). 1 Furthermore, the extent that African Americans were “received into the armed service.. garrison forts, positions, stations...”. 2 was limited. Black regiments existed that solely fought on the front lines where the mortality rate was the highest, proving that people still placed the value of their lives below those of white soldiers, which contradicts the demand for equality; a priority for the civil rights agenda. Moreover, only the slaves in the rebel states had been freed; white soldiers refused to fight alongside the black regiments and if captured, black soldiers were executed instead of imprisoned. This demonstrates how limited de facto change had taken place. However, legislation did allow some slaves freedom and admission to the army.
Lincoln’s speech is valuable in showing the advancement of African American civil rights because it illustrates the limited extent of progression up until presidential intervention. The effects of the emancipation were a result of the strong racist attitudes that were prevalent at the time it was issued; such attitudes take far longer to change. As a speech, his intention was to enhance his support by appeasing southern politicians and citizens by not freeing slaves from all states, only “designated states...”. 3 On the other hand, Lincoln was forced to act because he saw them as a military necessity to win the civil war, which would win the support of the northern politicians. Ultimately, he desired unity.
1 Lincoln A, 1863, Emancipation Proclamation. Abraham Lincoln Online. URL:
abrahamlincolnonline/lincoln/speeches/emancipate.htm 2 Ibid 3 Ibid
Nevertheless, Lincoln did instigate change. The proclamation had a by-product of advancing the civil rights movement; presidents only usually contribute when it suits their agenda. It can be said that if Lincoln had not issued the proclamation, the level to which civil rights was progressing would not have been possible had Lincoln not initiated it this early in 1863. He provided a foundation from which civil rights could advance. Lincoln’s contribution perhaps appears exaggerated because of the societal conditions of African Americans prior to Emancipation, but regardless, it was a significant contribution. Therefore, in the instance of Lincoln, presidential support was a key factor in advancing civil rights.
Arguably, the presidency most responsible for advancing civil rights for African Americans was the Johnson administration, a century after the Emancipation Proclamation. Johnson’s actions, like Lincoln’s, were the product of a complex socio-political situation, which ultimately advanced civil rights beyond any previous presidency. In this instance, Johnson was able to deliver legislative reform which clearly translated into social impact.
Given the importance of the Vietnam War (1955-1975), civil rights advancement was not Johnson’s biggest priority. Johnson wanted to maintain popularity with voters, hence avoiding the mobilization of soldiers to help the South Vietnamese army until after he had won the election, and by avoiding a civil rights conflict, which could affect the voting intention of African Americans. This is a reason why he said in a letter to Martin Luther King (December 2nd, 1963) that he did “wish to extend... personally every assurance...[to] continue the great struggle for civil rights” (Source 2). 4 68% of all citizens now supported a proposed Civil Rights Act in 1964, therefore making the issue unavoidable for Johnson.
With increasing clarity, by passing the Civil Rights Act, Johnson did “continue the great struggle for civil rights” 5 : ending most forms of public segregation through the threat of cutting funding. Also, establishing the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission was a way that African Americans could file lawsuits if discrimination did occur, providing a safety net which had not been noticeably effective before – ultimately showing change. African American unemployment had been reduced from 55% in 1955, to 41% in 1966 as result. It authorised the Office of Education to assist with school segregation. The Act also was as a catalyst for the Voting Rights Act 1965, which stopped qualification tests that legally prevented African Americans from voting, and the Fair Housing Act, which banned discrimination in selling, renting and financing property. Therefore, the source clearly demonstrates Johnson’s ability to cause social change from the legislation he passed; something which is not common.
But the Act had its limitations. Housing was still worse for African Americans than whites and unemployment was above average (7% by 1968, double that of white Americans). African Americans were dissatisfied with the amount of progress it made; for them it had not gone far enough, resulting in social unrest (e. Watts riots, 1965). Even by this point, the support of the president still was not enough, and was therefore not a critical factor in advancing civil rights to a level that satisfied all African Americans.
Although Johnson’s presidency was arguably the most significant in advancing civil rights through legislative action, his ability to “continue the great struggle for civil rights” was considered limited by many African Americans who desired faster progress, they viewed it as ‘too little, too late’. 6 Despite these reservations over the pace of change, the extent to which the civil rights movement had
4 Johnson L B,1963, Letter to Martin Luther King, The King Centre. URL:
thekingcenter/archive/document/letter-president-johnson-mlk-assuming- presidency
5 Ibid
Furthermore, McKinley failed to take steps to reduce the regressive impact of the Plessy vs Ferguson Supreme Court ruling: that segregation was constitutional and therefore did not equal inferior treatment. As things stood, all three branches of the government were unwilling to make civil rights legislation their priority. Here, the lack of presidential support was a key factor in preventing the advancement of civil rights.
After the Second World War, civil rights organisations began campaigning for change through a more complex, multi-layered approach. The lack of legislative reform through political channels such as the presidency and congress created frustration. The frustration of decades of legislative stagnation led to newly formed organizations, such as the NAACP (1909) pressuring for reform through an alternative legislative channel; specifically, through the courts.
In 1944, the NAACP published a poster comparing Jim Crow Laws to Nazism (Source 3). 8 It illustrates how they supported the “Double V” (victory at home and victory abroad). The NAACP were central to promoting the argument that fascism and anti-democratic legislation, namely the Jim Crow laws, should be fought as part of the war effort and in America itself. Essentially, the purpose of the poster was to recruit support through aiding a wider perception that fascism, as illustrated by the Nazi symbol, was not just a foreign phenomenon. When the poster was published (1944), civil rights progress had stagnated. Franklin D. Roosevelt never specifically helped African Americans with the New Deal legislation. Indeed, the Wagner Act (1935) had the adverse effect of allowing dominant labour unions to discriminate against African Americans because the American Federation of Labour lobbied against the provision that prevented discrimination.
Additionally, there was a lack of wider public support for civil rights progress at the time primarily because of the war. The necessity for an attempt to encourage support, is clearly stated through the slogan: “Come, let us counsel together”. 9 This shows how their campaign had broadened to seek popular support for civil rights reform, strongly suggesting that the source is valuable in showing that presidential support alone was insufficient.
The imagery within the poster unapologetically suggests that Jim Crow Laws are comparable to Nazism. The hand grasping the crow was not that of a victim; the NAACP wanted to appear as a respectable organisation pursuing civil rights advancement. The hand also embodies the multi- layered approach that they took. The suit represents how they tackled civil rights issues through the courts; the grasp illustrates how they successfully challenged such issues, and the war-time imagery on the crow’s legs highlights how they want to appeal to those patriotic about the war effort.
Source 3 10 not only highlights the intention to create popular support for civil right reform, it also suggests they are a credible organisation capable of pressing for change within the legal system. After the NAACP created the Legal Defence Fund (1939), lawyers within the organisation could achieve change in several landmark court cases. In one notable example, Smith v Allwright (1944), it was ruled that it was unconstitutional to prohibit African Americans from voting using the qualification test. As Roosevelt was president during this case, it demonstrates that presidential support is again not fundamental because Roosevelt’s priorities were elsewhere. This shows that civil rights were still able to progress within the Supreme Court, and through applying pressure to branches of government other than the Presidency. In this instance, it was not presidential support,
8 NAACP’s Wartime Poster, 1944, Library of Congress. URL:
loc/exhibits/naacp/world-war-ii-and-the-post-war-years.html#obj 9 Ibid 10 Ibid
but the actions of African American lawyers and judges in the Supreme Court that played a major role.
During Eisenhower’s presidency, a further NAACP victory came in Brown v Board of Education (1954): it ruled that state-sanctioned segregation of public schools was unconstitutional. Eisenhower as president appointed Chief Justice Warren. However, because Eisenhower was quoted as saying the appointment of Warren was a mistake, it shows how Eisenhower’s support was not essential, as the Supreme Court ruled against segregation due to Warren’s active support for civil rights advancement.
Rulings such as Brown v Board of Education and Smith v Allwright reflect the trend that the NAACP achieved legislative change through the Supreme Court, but were not as successful in achieving de facto change. Evidence of this can be seen in Morgan v Virginia (1946). This case ruled that segregation on interstate bus travel was illegal, but the extent this was implemented was limited because companies in the south still segregated during the 1960’s. These three court cases highlight the NAACP’s ability to achieve legislative change through the courts, whilst being unable to cause de facto change. For this, the support of all three branches and specifically the president, was key. A prime example of when the president was essential to enforce legislative change was the Little Rock Nine Incident (1957). The fact that Eisenhower was forced to send in 1200 troops to protect the students shows how his power was required for past legislation, specifically in Brown v Board of Education, to be enforced. Even then, Governor Faubus closed the school for the following year. This is an example of an inability to cause lasting societal change.
Martin Luther King Jr’s involvement within the Southern Christian Leadership Conference and the Montgomery Improvement Association (MIA) (1929-1968) provided him with a prominent platform to become the figurehead that the movement had lacked previously. He recognised that presidential support was crucial. To achieve this, he built on the NAACP’s work and challenged anti-civil rights legislation. An example being through the MIA, eventually leading to a ruling in 1956 that stated segregation laws breached the 14th Amendment. He also utilised the media to generate awareness for civil rights in key southern states as well as nationwide - the most significant example being Birmingham (1963). Kennedy admitted this was essential to help persuade the government to address the need for civil rights legislation. Furthermore, despite initially opposing the March on Washington (1963), Kennedy called a meeting of 1500 religious, labour and business groups. Both instances demonstrate King’s requirement for presidential action.
Whereas King presumed civil rights advancement would only occur through applying pressure to legislative and political bodies dominated by White Americans, Malcolm X believed that encouraging the cultural advancement of African-Americanism was far more essential.
As William W. Sales describes, Malcolm X stated that there were “limits of reform”. 11 (Source 4). The two major limitations from his perspective was the continuing power of White Americans and the lack of African American class consciousness. He encouraged consciousness by educating them about the hypocrisy of Northern White Liberals and stated that “they make you forget you’re in a snake pit”. By doing so, he wished to create the grievances that were required for change, thus eradicating this limit of reform.
11 Sales W W, 1994, ‘From Civil Rights to Black Liberation: Malcolm X and the organisation of Afro
American Unity’. Boston: South End Press, P 211.
involved in an Arms Race with Khrushchev: Kennedy reactivated nuclear tests in 1962 and increased the military reserves. The Cuban Missile Crisis caused him to focus on the threat of nuclear war. The attention to foreign policy, and not civil rights, allowed the failure of the Commission of Equal Employment Opportunity to widen its capability towards stopping discriminatory hiring practices African Americans.
Whenever Kennedy did act proactively, his actions lacked significant societal impact. Threatening to cut funding for the Washington Redskins based on discriminatory signing policies, for example, failed to show his presidency as serious about lasting civil rights reform. Furthermore, Kennedy can also be judged as a reactionary, rather than acting through genuine intent. For example, his defence of James Meredith occurred only because of the injuries to 200 Federal Marshals defending him. However, before the end of his presidency, Kennedy was beginning to put the Civil Rights Act 1964 through Congress.
Dudziak’s interpretation of Kennedy is valuable, as it was written in 2000 and therefore is revisionist. Her position as president of the Society for Historians of American Foreign Relations meant that she’d have a very informed opinion on this issue. As a result of the heightened availability of live media coverage in homes during the 1960’s, it created the perception that he was a civil rights hero as his action were just publicised more. So much so that he was seen to be too focused on civil rights, causing him to lose support of Northern Liberals who felt they were being disregarded. However, Dudziak fails to recognise that his death, coupled with the exaggerated pro-civil rights agenda that he was perceived to have had an impact. As a result, Kennedy did influence change, because Johnson felt the necessity to honour Kennedy by passing the Civil Rights Act 1964. Hence why, in the instance of Malcolm X and Kennedy, presidential support was a less essential factor in advancing civil rights. Malcolm X forced more change, whereas Kennedy was only majorly significant and influential in death because of how much momentum it gave the Civil Rights Act (1964).
Unequivocally, presidential support was the key factor in advancing African American civil rights between 1860-1970. However, the actions of both civil rights groups and leaders cannot be undermined as they created the substantial pressure required to force the president to act. In response to international conflict, groups such as the NAACP raised the question of why African Americans should fight for America if they are legally not as significant as the people they are protecting (Source 3). This position was also essential to their objective of legal equality through the Supreme Court, a move which achieved substantial change between the 1930’s and 1960’s. Civil rights leaders, whilst having conflicting approaches to reform, helped the formation of a more significant level of racial consciousness (Source 4). They provided the platform from which African American identity and struggle could be represented through the media in both methods. Civil rights activism occurred during a period of legislative stagnation. This pause was due to a lack of popular support forced presidential action. In addition, the regressive attitudes of the president would have prevented total legislative change and by simply not proactively acting, they facilitate this. However, presidential support was ultimately essential in passing both the Emancipation Proclamation and the Civil Rights Act 1964, both of which were circumstantially incredibly important; presidential was required to act on it and to have an impact. Regardless of whether the reason for such change was because of civil rights groups and leaders; or personal obligation and reputation (Source 2), no significant advancement would have happened without presidential action. The president is vital in forming de jure change. The impacts of civil right activism mainly affected African American’s lives, whereas legislation forms lasting de facto change by also affecting how White American’s act. By doing so, the whole nation then it can progress together rather than separately.
Bibliography
Primary Sources
(Source 1) The Emancipation Proclamation 1963
- abrahamlincolnonline/lincoln/speeches/emancipate.htm
(Source 2) Letter from President Lyndon B. Johnson to Martin Luther King on assuming presidency
- thekingcenter/archive/document/letter-president-johnson-mlk-assuming- presidency
(Source 3) NAACP’s 1944 Wartime Poster
- loc/exhibits/naacp/world-war-ii-and-the-post-war-years.html#obj
Historical Interpretations
(Source 4) William W. Sales ‘From Civil Rights to Black Liberation: Malcolm X and the organisation of Afro American Unity’, Boston: South End Press, 1994.
(Source 5) Mary L. Dudziak ‘Cold War Civil Rights – Race and the Image of American Democracy’, Princeton University Press: New Jersey, 2000.
Articles
Austin A, ‘For African Americans, 50 years of high unemployment’. Accessed, August 23rd, 2017 from the Economic Policy Institute. URL: epi/publication/african- americans-50-years-high-unemployment/
Baldwin D, ‘The Civil Rights Movement’. Accessed, October 18th, 2017, from Africana Age. URL: exhibitions.nypl/africanaage/essay-landing.html
Bracey J, ‘Black Nationalism in America’. Accessed, October 3rd, 2017, from the Freedom Archives. URL: freedomarchives/Documents/Finder/Black%20Liberation %20Disk/Black%20Power!/SugahData/Books/Bracey4.S
Emory Law, ‘Mary L. Dudziak, Biography’. Accessed, September 10th, 2017, from Emory Law. URL: law.emory/faculty-and-scholarship/faculty-profiles/dudziak-profile.html
History in An Hour, ‘Malcolm X’s Influence on the Black Panther Party’s Philosophy’. Accessed, October 18th, 2017, from the History in an Hour website. URL: historyinanhour/2012/06/15/malcolm-x-black-panthers/
Jacobson L, ‘Bill O'Reilly says poverty hasn't budged since 1965 despite 'trillions' spent’. Accessed, November 7th, 2017, from Politifact. URL: politifact/truth-o-
NEA Final Draft - Civil Rights Coursework on the impact of presidents on furthering the civil
Subject: History
Sixth Form (A Levels)
• A2 - A Level
Recommended for you
Students also viewed
- Causes of the Spanish Civil War Essay
- Investigating area of historical debate, full coursework - the origins of WWII
- Brian Manning The monarchy and the military (September 1999)
- The Debate over Transportations to the Witches Sabbat in Early Modern Europ-6
- Whr,+Katelyn+Mc Girr,+Braunschweig+-+A+Historiography+of+Ordinary+Germans+and+the+Holocaust
- Newman - Coursework History on Holocaust Nazi Germany